Forget the text

March 06, 2002
By Bukka Rennie

If we continue to exist only according to the written law of the land, according to what the "book" says, we will amount to nothing and will accomplish little.

One can recall that many citizens of Trinidad and Tobago were amused when the Bishop/Coard Government in Grenada self-destruct because the old-school "left" political activists involved were so sterile that they kept looking for "text" to explain and elucidate their reality.

When they could find nothing in their "book", they simply took to murdering each other.

How much different are we today?

We keeping saying to all the people on either side of the great divide that all written "constitutions" are social contracts that are mere guidelines to the procedures of governance.

And quite so because no one could anticipate in advance all the possibilities that may arise in the course of social development.

Nothing is therefore cast in stone.

The intelligent thing is to be flexible, to be divergent thinkers and never allow our thought processes to be confined to solid categories.

This is why all this talk about what the Constitution says or does not say and what the Constitution authorises various office-holders to do or not do is in fact "jackass talk".

We have the guidelines of text and the "spirit" of the law, so when we find ourselves in situations that are not fully covered by them, we simply have to break new ground and chart new seas, even new "seasons of adventure". What is there "to be afraid of, if not fear itself?"

The 18-18 situation was not anticipated and so we were "occasioned" with one of the moments when guidelines indicate that the holder of the Office of President must arbitrate in order to get the structures of governance functioning.

Clearly in an 18-18 situation, the single act of the President appointing a Prime Minister cannot satisfy the requirement of getting the structures operating.

So the President by dint of reason had to go one step further and appoint an independent Speaker so Parliament could be convened and from that the rest of the requirements of full governance would flow.

What is the fear? We have had in the recent past Speakers of the House who were not elected MPs.

The point is that we should allow and encourage our office-holders to act decisively and intelligently whenever the situation occasions it rather than have them appear to be "moo-moos" locked in by written text that serves to be debilitating.

And even if the President were of the view that the arrangements should be interim, given the 18-18 results, then the power should be his to declare so and to set an appropriate date, given the EBC fiasco, for new elections.

What's wrong with such an approach?

Absolutely nothing!

After all, the present text declares the President, and not the Prime-Minister, to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

That makes the President one of the countervailing forces to the PM in the present mix of things and he can bring that power to bear on negotiating whatever is to be determined as the national agenda.

In the final analysis, it all guarantees that the coercive forces can easily be utilised once the two heads are in agreement so to do.

Although this can suffice in the present scenario, it is all really quite superficial.

Eventually, in time, the structures of governance will have to be dealt with in order to place power into the hands of the whole people, organised and assembled.

In the present context, as a first step, what is really needed is national consensus on issues such as: The transformation of Caroni Ltd and land reform; an industrial policy with particular reference to gas; the ETP; the question of local government and community empowerment; a cultural policy that is all-embracing with particular emphasis on what we have given to the world; etc, etc.

If the major political entities can meet regularly to hammer out consensus on such issues, it will be much more worthwhile than talking nonsense about "power-sharing".

What we want is a sustainable development plan to which we, as citizens, can all be committed.